High Court disposed of a second appeal allowing a compoundable suit withdrawal via compromise. Appeals were allowed; judgments below were set aside; suit dismissed as withdrawn. Parties bound by compromise terms.
Appeals allowed; judgments of courts below set aside; suit dismissed as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.1903 of 1991 (O & M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1903 of 1991 (O & M) Date of Decision: 28.01.2011
Sanjay Gupta
……Appellant
Versus
Jagmohan Lal
…...Respondent
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for respondent.
L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
CM No.1191-C of 2011 and RSA No.1903 of 1991
Respondent has moved CM No.1191-C of 2011 alleging that the parties have effected compromise Annexure R-1 pursuant to which plaintiff-respondent seeks permission to withdraw the suit itself out of which the instant second appeal bearing RSA No.1903 of 1991 has arisen.
Learned counsel for the parties after seeking instructions from both the parties, who are said to be present in person in the Court, state that parties have effected compromise Annexure R-1 and the appeal be, therefore, disposed of in terms of compromise Annexure R-1. The appeal has thus been lawfully compromised.
In view of compromise, CM No.1191-C of 2011 is allowed. Consequently, RSA No.1903 of 1991 is also allowed and judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside and suit filed by
RSA No.1903 of 1991 (O & M)
respondent-plaintiff is dismissed as withdrawn. The parties shall remain
bound by terms of compromise Annexure R-1.
(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE
28.01.2011 A.kaundal
Sanjay Gupta
Jagmohan Lal
L. N. MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
